Anti-Capitalism Thread
- Thread starter Cap
- Start date
Cap
Well-known member
Richard D. Wolff on the Basic Universal Income & Role of Technology in Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DNRUl2Le0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DNRUl2Le0
Cap
Well-known member
First time I've seen so much failure in one video.
A 3 year old can counter all the arguments this man states.
OK, lets hear it - we are all ears.
Btw, that man (Prof. Dr. Richard Wolff) has PhD in economics.
Cap
Well-known member
Empire Files: Peter Joseph & Abby Martin on Abolishing Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwFOo5rbZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwFOo5rbZA
Dirius
Well-known member
Sure, his first topic is basic universal basic income right? lets talk about that
The first problem is the lack of incentive: if people are given a basic income, what would be the incentive for people to actually get jobs? This applies particularly to young people who usually cover the minimum wage jobs, who are more prone to want to "enjoy" life rather than work (and this is true for the millenial generation).
He then goes on to ramble about how technology is replacing jobs, and people will have no jobs in the future.... which seems to be his main reason as to why an universal basic income is required.
When technology advances, people simply move into other new areas that are created by the new technology. A few good examples of "jobs" that appeared in the 21st century as a consequence of the spread of the internet and the lower costs of getting a computer:
- Youtubers and streamers.
- Professional video-game players and e-sports.
- Website content cretors.
- APP developers.
- and many more...
To give you a small example, I have a small secondary income through reading Horary charts, that supplies my main income with extra cash each month, and because of technology it takes me very little time to do it.
Pretty much everything he states is nonsense, and applies the usual failed marxist theory that has been proven to be wrong for over a century-
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
We can later on go into the subject of how impossible it is to achieve an universal basic income, and how unfair it is for people to over-tax the higher income bracket.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Robot manufacturing and repair will be good fields of employment, until robots become self-replicating and self-repairing.
david starling
Well-known member
Since the highest brackets have WAY more money than necessary to live a life of luxury and ease, there's nothing intrinsically unfair about forcing them to contribute to the subsistence lifestyle of the many. What's your definition of "over-tax"?
Cap
Well-known member
First, personally I am strongly against universal basic income (UBI). UBI is capitalist idea and its main proponents are billionaires such as Branson, Zuckerberg, Musk etc. They endorse it because they are afraid for their personal wealth and status (and maybe even life) in case of social uprising and revolution. The basic idea of UBI is to give people some crumbs from the table of abundance made by automation and to avoid hungry mobs with pitchforks while maintaining ultra rich status of owners of automated factories. This is a desperate attempt to artificially prolong the life of capitalism. Of course, I'd rather see capitalism crash within years from now and make room for something much better, so I am against UBI.
Estimates from 2018 say that technology is replacing jobs five times faster than creating new ones. It's different this time because first time in human history we have machines capable of autonomous performance. It's not replacing just low skill jobs, we have machines that can perform medical procedures, write articles, compose music, write computer codes etc.
Your examples are misleading. How many people can successfully live as professional youtubers? Tiny, minuscule percentage of all youtubers. And their paycheck is coming from advertising money, which will inevitably stop when we arrive into situation that majority of people don't have money to buy products (because they don't have a job).
We can already see the preliminary effects of automation in capitalism by observing the rise of freelance and gig economy. Essentially, the society is regressing back into feudalism.
Poor worker conditions power gig economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNLXqvPk2tU
Last edited:
Oddity
Well-known member
And what kind of 'force' do you suggest we apply to separate people from their money?
Why is it fair to do that?
Why is it fair to do that?
Dirius
Well-known member
Lets examine this:
If what you said was true, then by definition people would be less employed today than decades before, because population has increased and (according to your numbers) there are less jobs available.
Yet, unemployment rates in the U.S. have always remained between the 4%-10% rate for over 60 years, despite multiple technological developments. In fact, for example right now, you have more people employed that you did 20 years ago in the end of the Clinton era during the 90's, despite the american population having increased by 50 million individuals since 1998.
In contrast, in less technologically developed countries, such as those in South America (including my own), we find unemployment rates that go from 15% to 30%.
So the numbers don't really support your statement regarding technological development destroying jobs faster than it creates them.
------------------------
------------------------
Also lets review my examples:
I use youtube as an example, because it is widely known to pretty much anyone; you state that youtubers don't earn enough to make a living, but that is acually false, given most serious youtubers (those that actually make multiple videos per week) earn at least above the minimum wage, with the top 10 channels combined having made millions per year. Now the problem si that you may be including any person that sporadically uploads random videos, which is not the aim of my example.
But content creation is not just what youtube does. Consider a website that is tied to youtube such as The Young Turks, which actually became a small entepeneurship that earns millions in revenue in youtube and employs at least 50 workers who are not video creators but part of their research team. So its not just the "streamers" who make money and get a job from it. You can find many other sites that a related to selling goods and services.
I also provided my own example of a "small side business", with the only reason it didn't grow was because I never actually invested time and effort into it (I do have a normal job).
The reality is that with the advent of technology jobs are moving from being a dependant into self-employment, but they are by no means dissapearing.
Dirius
Well-known member
Ah I see, so you believe that you should force people to give up their money.
What if they don't want to. What happens then?
david starling
Well-known member
Capitalism is firmly rooted in what are referred to as the "7 Deadly Sins". No surprise that it feeds off of War and destroys the Environment.
david starling
Well-known member
They pay fines and/or go to prison, like Al Capone.
david starling
Well-known member
Since Capitalism considers this entire planet as its property, and all of Earth's inhabitants as its subjects, it should be involved in stewardship and establishing a reasonable level of material existence for everyone.
Dirius
Well-known member
I see, so we either make every person with a certain income give at least half the money they earn (or more) to the goverment, or we put them in jail. And we treat them like Al Capone, despite many of them being good honest hard-working individuals.
So we go soviet style and just apply a kulak system for the rich, in the name of the poor people. Because that turned out really well.
You want to take money from other people, or send them to jail, and you really believe that is moral david?
david starling
Well-known member
If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank takes your house, at gunpoint If you resist. If you can't pay your rent, your landlord calls the sheriff to put you out on the street. If you haven't enough money for food, the markets and restaurants let you starve. If you have millions of dollars in yearly income, and the government takes a third of that, it's hardly a real problem for you, and it can and SHOULD be used to help those who need help.
Dirius
Well-known member
In order to have a mortage, pay rent, or pay at the restaurant, you have to purchase a service or product which is sold to you at an equal price to everyone else. If you buy a burger at McDonalds, it costs you the same amount of money regardless of being poor or rich.
In your over-tax progressive system, you are making rich people pay more taxes than others, for the only reason that according to people like you, they have too much, and are giving yourself the right to choose what they should do with their own money; not only that, but you threaten them with force if they don't comply.
You do not have a right to take other people's money. And you still haven't answer that point, why do you think that you get to decide what to do with someone elses money?
david starling
Well-known member
That's the best way to run the System, both in a practical sense, and morally as well. Your morality appears to be based on a defense of the greed and gluttony which make Capitalism unsustainable in the long run.
The trick is to tax just enough to keep the distribution of wealth at a reasonable level, without damaging the ambition to attain great wealth. Over-taxation would be detrimental.
The trick is to tax just enough to keep the distribution of wealth at a reasonable level, without damaging the ambition to attain great wealth. Over-taxation would be detrimental.